Development and evaluation of a risk communication curriculum for medical students
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Authors
Han, Paul K. J.Joekes, Katherine
Elwyn, Glyn
Mazor, Kathleen M.
Thomson, Richard
Sedgwick, Philip
Ibison, Judith
Wong, John B.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Meyers Primary Care InstituteDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2014-01-01
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop, pilot, and evaluate a curriculum for teaching clinical risk communication skills to medical students. METHODS: A new experience-based curriculum, "Risk Talk," was developed and piloted over a 1-year period among students at Tufts University School of Medicine. An experimental study of 2nd-year students exposed vs. unexposed to the curriculum was conducted to evaluate the curriculum's efficacy. Primary outcome measures were students' objective (observed) and subjective (self-reported) risk communication competence; the latter was assessed using an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) employing new measures. RESULTS: Twenty-eight 2nd-year students completed the curriculum, and exhibited significantly greater (p < .001) objective and subjective risk communication competence than a convenience sample of 24 unexposed students. New observational measures of objective competence in risk communication showed promising evidence of reliability and validity. The curriculum was resource-intensive. CONCLUSION: The new experience-based clinical risk communication curriculum was efficacious, although resource-intensive. More work is needed to develop the feasibility of curriculum delivery, and to improve the measurement of competence in clinical risk communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Risk communication is an important advanced communication skill, and the Risk Talk curriculum provides a model educational intervention and new assessment tools to guide future efforts to teach and evaluate this skill.Source
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jan;94(1):43-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.009. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.009Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/37294PubMed ID
24128795Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.009